A Divide, and Maybe a Divorce could be in store for the Anglican Communion. Again. This time, however, slavery is not the issue. Homosexuality is. The conservatives of the Anglican Communion have handed the Episcopalians an ultimatum to stop authorizing the blessings of gay couples and ordaining gay biships, or, face 'banishment' from the Communion. Now why does this sound so morbidly rhetoric to me?
The truth is that all Christian churches have undergone some type of 'divide' since the original establishment of Christianity itself way back in 41A.D., in Corinth. There is even an on-going discussion about the birthing of this religion itself, nevermind the never-ending battles that have seemingly never allowed the smoldering cinders to die into ash completely.
I also find it ironic that the Christian faith itself was founded and established upon the teachings of a man that was not Christian at all. He was Jewish. He was born and raised, lived and died as a Jew. According to some teachings, Christianity was established by one of Jesus' apostles, and, as many Christians believe, this particular apostle was Peter (Later known as "St. Peter"). He established the first Christian 'church' in Corinth, in 41 A. D. (Yes, the very same city that we get the books of Corinthians from in the Christian Bible - all versions).
Then we see the historical accounts of the "Holy Crusades" and "Jihads" (both terms referring to a 'religious war', and both defined similarly. Although a 'jihad' was not originally allowed to take place unless another faction or force had removed the Muslim faith from a particular geographical area, and in which case they were simply understood as 'defending ones turf' or 'taking back the land which rightfully and originally belongs to them in the first place'). Next we have the blow out divide between the 'Church of England' (known now as 'the establishment' - aka Anglicans) and the Catholics.
This took place back in the mid-1500's under the rule of King Henry VIII. Why? Because the Catholic faith does not adhere to the practice of divorce! (Gee, this sounds horribly familiar. Wait, I said 'does', instead of 'did' huh?) So now we have two religions, practicing almost similarly within their churches, save for a few 'minor differences'.
Moving along to the Civil War era, in which the north and south areas are once again divided not only through both geographical boundaries and political uprising, but also through their religious practices. Why? Slavery. Now, until the 1950s, 60s and 70s, this was the last 'understood and well publicized' rift between churches in this nation. Finally, in the 1970s, the 'Establishment' allowed the ordination of women within the churches around the nation. A great success for women in this country, as well as around the world. Great!
Unless you're female, and also happen to be a lesbian. This now poses a very 'bad' realism for the Anglican church. Beginning with the rising of Fr. V. Gene Robinson, a bishop of New Hampshire, and now being brought even moreso to the forefront by the election of Fr. Katherine Jefferts Schori, the first female Episcopal bishop in the nation. Both openly gay priests, and both devout to their faiths. And, as the main article wrote, liberals within the churches are asking "why can't we all just get along", while the conservatives are asking, "Why can't we all just get in line"? Gee, this seriously sounds so .... repetative.
Therefore, what I personally believe the main question should be is, "Since when is it written in any passage of the Bible, that any sect, branch, denomination or faction of the Christian faith holds the absolute and just right to denote who is allowed to preach the word of God"? Because quite frankly, it was not God who made that denotation.
No comments:
Post a Comment